Date:         Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:06:05 +0000
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      context set vs index set
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Are we going to leave the URI for the dc 'index' set alone, even though
it's got 'indexes' in it and we no longer talk about index sets?
Currently:
  http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/dc-indexes/v1.0/
I suggest:
  http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/contextSets/dc/v1.0/

(Or context-sets if preferred. Either way, it should point at the
documentation)

The cql set should definitely not have index-set in the URI as it has
everything in it, not just indexes.
I suggest:
  http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/contextSets/cql/v1.1/

(1.1 as it's the successor to the SRW 1.0 index set, even if it is the
1.0 CQL context set)

I believe that Mike is working on the bath profile mapping.

As maintainer of the ccg, rec and net sets, I'm changing them to
contextSets in the URI (and changing them from my private domain to a work
domain at the same time)  Mike's zthes set doesn't have either in it, and
that's all that are known.


Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I